Re: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks, that all sounds good.

Awesome, thank you Ben (and IESG, WG, authors, etc!)

W

>
> Ben.
>
>> On Oct 27, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2017, at 7:30 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-06: No Objection
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments! The update at:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis-07
>>
>> Should address all of these. Responses inline.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tommy
>>
>>>
>>> Substantive Comments:
>>>
>>> - I agree with Adam's comments about normative language.
>>
>> Yes, us too. These have been cleaned up.
>>>
>>> -4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence:
>>> "across networks" and "network changes" are ambiguous. I think you are talking
>>> about moving a device from one access network to another, but "across networks"
>>> could be interpreted to mean "sending the data across networks". "Network
>>> changes" could refer to changes in network configuration.
>>
>> Fixed the wording to be more clear that the information shouldn't be shared between different interfaces, and that changing a device's network attachment should clear the data.
>>>
>>> -10: I don't understand what you mean by "direct" vs "indirect" security
>>> considerations.
>>
>> Removed the line about "direct" security considerations.
>>>
>>> Editorial Comments:
>>>
>>> - Abstract: Please mention that this obsoletes 6555 in the abstract. (The intro
>>> already does so.)
>>
>> Mentioned.
>>>
>>> - 7.2, last paragraph: The pattern "... recommended at 2 seconds" does not make
>>> grammatical sense. I would assume there are missing words, but I see the same
>>> pattern occur several times in the document. I suggest "recommended to be..."
>>
>> Switched to "to be" throughout the document.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf